心理科学
心理科學
심이과학
Psychological Science
2008年
1期
133~137
,共null页
主动攻击(PA) 反应攻击(RA) 社会信息加工(SIP) 表情知觉
主動攻擊(PA) 反應攻擊(RA) 社會信息加工(SIP) 錶情知覺
주동공격(PA) 반응공격(RA) 사회신식가공(SIP) 표정지각
Proactive aggression(PA), Reactive aggression(RA), Social Information processing (SIP), Emotional face perception
为了探讨小学男童的攻击类型和其社会信息和表情识别特点,该研究抽取了808名小学生进行攻击性的教师评定和同伴评定。筛选出主动攻击11人、反应攻击11人、混合攻击27人,加由17名非攻击儿童组成的控制组,参加社会信息加工特点和表情识别特点实验。结果显示:(1)小学低年级攻击性儿童以混合性攻击为主,反应攻击和主动攻击所占比例较小;(2)高攻击性人群的攻击反应和愤怒反应较强,可是,不同类型之间的差异没有被检测出来;(3)在不同攻击类型中,主动攻击显示较强的敌意归因;(4)主动攻击对悲伤表情的辨认能力较低,反应攻击组对愤怒表情的辨认较弱。研究反映:攻击性儿童在社会信息加工和表情知觉能力上均存在一定的特点,而且,不同攻击类型之间也存在一定的差异。该研究对制定儿童攻击性干预计划具有一定指导意义。
為瞭探討小學男童的攻擊類型和其社會信息和錶情識彆特點,該研究抽取瞭808名小學生進行攻擊性的教師評定和同伴評定。篩選齣主動攻擊11人、反應攻擊11人、混閤攻擊27人,加由17名非攻擊兒童組成的控製組,參加社會信息加工特點和錶情識彆特點實驗。結果顯示:(1)小學低年級攻擊性兒童以混閤性攻擊為主,反應攻擊和主動攻擊所佔比例較小;(2)高攻擊性人群的攻擊反應和憤怒反應較彊,可是,不同類型之間的差異沒有被檢測齣來;(3)在不同攻擊類型中,主動攻擊顯示較彊的敵意歸因;(4)主動攻擊對悲傷錶情的辨認能力較低,反應攻擊組對憤怒錶情的辨認較弱。研究反映:攻擊性兒童在社會信息加工和錶情知覺能力上均存在一定的特點,而且,不同攻擊類型之間也存在一定的差異。該研究對製定兒童攻擊性榦預計劃具有一定指導意義。
위료탐토소학남동적공격류형화기사회신식화표정식별특점,해연구추취료808명소학생진행공격성적교사평정화동반평정。사선출주동공격11인、반응공격11인、혼합공격27인,가유17명비공격인동조성적공제조,삼가사회신식가공특점화표정식별특점실험。결과현시:(1)소학저년급공격성인동이혼합성공격위주,반응공격화주동공격소점비례교소;(2)고공격성인군적공격반응화분노반응교강,가시,불동류형지간적차이몰유피검측출래;(3)재불동공격류형중,주동공격현시교강적활의귀인;(4)주동공격대비상표정적변인능력교저,반응공격조대분노표정적변인교약。연구반영:공격성인동재사회신식가공화표정지각능력상균존재일정적특점,이차,불동공격류형지간야존재일정적차이。해연구대제정인동공격성간예계화구유일정지도의의。
To investigate aggressive school-boys' social information processing and perception of emotional faces, the present study selected 49 boys with proactive, reactive or unclassified aggressive boys from among 808 primary school students and then to test and compare their traits and differences respectively by lab experiments. The main results are: (1) of the three types of aggressive boys, there 'were much more unclassified aggressive boys than prosctive and reactive aggressive boys; (2) Aggressive boys were found to have more aggressive and angry reaction when faced with ambiguous social situations, but no significant difference was found among the three aggressive types; (3)A little hostility was in proactive boys; (4)Proactive boys performed worse in the task of sad faces perception, and reactive boys were weaker in identifying anger faces. The research implies that aggressive boys of different types have their own features in processing social and emotional information and should have their own values in intervention practices.